Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Ouroboros]

You forget that God helped Noah. He could have easily shrunk the animals or not let them get hungry for a year, or, fed them animal manna. Plus, you're forgetting the miracle of holding a 450' wooden boat together without leaking. All proof that God can do anything.

Yes! Shrink rays. And then he used the dinosaurs to fly the koalas to New Australia.

I wonder, did God also store all the seeds for fruits and berries? All the roots for root plants? Most of the would have been flushed around and covered deep in the mud. Or worms? Where did God hide all species of worms?

And then bacteria and virus. If that didn't mutate or evolve, then the whole arc must've been filled with sickness.

But really now, if humans lived 900 plus years, what about the rodents? ( not to mention the insects and bacteria and fish) How many mice were on the planet? After all, there's some that think that even the animals were not allowed to eat meat in the beginning. So with no predators, what do you think? Maybe 100 or 200 year old mice that had like a billion babies? They must have been everywhere. Obviously, we must have piles and piles of bones from this time period. It was only 4000 to 6000 years ago. It must show substantial differences in structure and bone density wouldn't it. Oh, and those bones of the giants, the Nephilim. I saw their pictures on Youtube. What was there DNA like? Half human, half "sons of God"? They have run tests on them haven't they?

Of course they did. The DNA has 7 more chromosomes (the number of heaven), and it's not to a double helix but triple (like the trinity).

Imagine all the currents from the rain falling for so long as so incredible heavy. The water had to be rising about 13 feet an hour (estimated from the height of mt Everest and 90 days rain). That's one inch every 4-5 minutes, all over the world at the same time. The currents from such a storm. I wonder if someone has calculated the kinetic force and heat from friction this would have caused. And how far the arc would have been pushed down. I don't know how to do it, so it would be fun to hear someone do it.

I found a table for how many gallons it is per sq.ft. http://www.josam.com/images/josammkt/zzother/C07_pgrd7.pdf
It only goes up to 6 in/hr, which is almost 4 gal/hr/sqft. So the flood would've been 8-10 gal/hr/sqft. Imagine having about one gallon of water poured over your head every 6 minutes, for 90 days. This reminds me of the "chinese" torture where the subject is placed under dripping water.

 

[outhouse]

thus the long lives

Do you really believe these people lived long lives?


Dont answer. Just so you know this goes back to that whole pesky education you refuse.

If you did decide to get educated on the topics you debate, you would know that it was customary to attribute long life spans to respected people, other cultures did it that existed before Isarelites, and Israelites were no different in this respect.

It did not mean they lived that long, or that they actually existed. There is no reason at all to think they did actually exist.


Why people cannot accept that ancient people taught lessons through fiction and mythology is beyond me.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

You forget that God helped Noah. He could have easily shrunk the animals or not let them get hungry for a year.

Please... PLEASE, tell me you're joking.:areyoucra

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Yes! Shrink rays. And then he used the dinosaurs to fly the koalas to New Australia.

That is blasphemy, sir! Everyone knows he really used the flying rainbow unicorns.

 

[Thief]

But the thing is, how do you determine what parts are "literal" and what parts are "metaphorical?" Also, if much of it is really "metaphorical" or "allegorical," can it still be considered a "literal creation account?" Also, yes I do believe in cloning, but it takes more than a rib to go about the cloning process. A surrogate mother is also needed, which was not mentioned in Genesis.

Point taken.
The actual cloning technique is not detailed.

But you then discount the entire event for the lack of that detail?

Man step away from his animal kingdom.
The account of Chapter Two indicates we had Assistance.

Do you really think all of this..... that we are.... was an accident?

 

[Thief]

The way I understand cloning is that you would be making another copy of the same person.

So if god was indeed "cloning", then wouldn't he be making another man - another Adam, so to say?

And I say (repeatedly over the years).
Genetic manipulation was performed and Eve would be Adam's twin sister.
...without the navel.

 

[Thief]

Do you really believe these people lived long lives?


Dont answer. Just so you know this goes back to that whole pesky education you refuse.

If you did decide to get educated on the topics you debate, you would know that it was customary to attribute long life spans to respected people, other cultures did it that existed before Isarelites, and Israelites were no different in this respect.

It did not mean they lived that long, or that they actually existed. There is no reason at all to think they did actually exist.


Why people cannot accept that ancient people taught lessons through fiction and mythology is beyond me.

And why people can't learn of God by fiction and mythology is beyond me.

Seen any Star Trek later?
I suppose the parallel lines aren't clear to you?

 

[rusra02]

"Historicity and truthfulness?" You mean like saying that it is somehow possible to fit 8 people, 17,400 birds, 12,000 reptiles, 9,000 mammals, 5,000 amphibians, 2,000,000 insects, and a year's supply of food and water, on a boat that is only 450 feet long?

The Bible does not state how many animals in total were in the ark. This quote is relevant, I believe: "Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list." (W92 1/15)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Bible does not state how many animals in total were in the ark. This quote is relevant, I believe: "Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list." (W92 1/15)

What are the 43 kinds of Mammals? 74 kinds of birds? and 10 Kinds of reptiles?

Also how many kinds of plants are there?

How many kinds of amphibians are there?

How many kinds of insects?

How many kinds of arachnids?

How many kinds of crustaceans are there?

How many kinds of mollusk are there?

How many kinds of fish are there?

How many kinds of Fungi are there?

 

[rusra02]

What are the 43 kinds of Mammals? 74 kinds of birds? and 10 Kinds of reptiles?

Also how many kinds of plants are there?

How many kinds of amphibians are there?

How many kinds of insects?

How many kinds of arachnids?

How many kinds of crustaceans are there?

How many kinds of mollusk are there?

How many kinds of fish are there?

How many kinds of Fungi are there?

Obviously, fish and some mammals would not be taken into the ark, nor would plants, other than for food. The short answer to your question is we simply do not know today how many "kinds" of animals went into the ark, but we do know many species can interbreed and reproduce, thus belonging to the same "kind".

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The Bible does not state how many animals in total were in the ark. This quote is relevant, I believe: "Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list." (W92 1/15)

Considering there are 8.7 million species of animals on this planet, and none of these species are capable of interbreeding with other species, either one of two things is true, either All of those 8.7 million species of animals (except for fish of course) had to fit on the ark, or the ones that were left out perished in the flood, and went extinct, so which one is it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Obviously, fish

Was the water salty, brackish, or sweet?

and some mammals would not be taken into the ark,

Which ones? And why would it be "obvious?"

nor would plants,

With thousands of feet of water pounding down for 90 days and burying seeds and all living things under miles of thick mud... they would have to.

How long does it take to grow a orange tree?

other than for food. The short answer to your question is we simply do not know today how many "kinds" of animals went into the ark, but we do know many species can interbreed and reproduce, thus belonging to the same "kind".

Uhm... the differences between species of the different "kinds" are so great that it's not based on intermixing but because of mutational changes. In other words, if you believe what you said above, you have to believe in evolution. There's no way around it. The variation of the genes are too great to be represented in a few individuals.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Bible does not state how many animals in total were in the ark. This quote is relevant, I believe: "Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list." (W92 1/15)

Those "investigators" are completely and utterly wrong. Did they "investigate" the genetic variation in the human genome? There are far more alleles represented in mankind than you can represent in a handful of people. You need about a 100 people or something like that to represent all variations. Each person carrying two alleles of each gene.

And it applies to most (if not all) animals as well.

There are millions of species. If you claim they were all represented in a few archetypical individuals, then all the new species come from mutation and natural section, which is evolution.

So in other words, you are a supporter of evolution if you believe in the ark.

But even more so, because you have to believe in a very rapid evolution. Millions of species evolving out of the ark in just a few thousand years instead of millions. Now, who is ready to give a scientific explanation to how that was possible?

What is this source, btw? W95 1/15? What's that? Who is it? When was it written? What's his/her credentials? Who are these investigators?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Those "investigators" are completely and utterly wrong. Did they "investigate" the genetic variation in the human genome?

By "investigators," I'm sure they mean Reverend Jim-Bob Johnson over at First Baptist, downtown in rural nowhere.:sarcastic

 

[Ouroboros]

By "investigators," I'm sure they mean Reverend Jim-Bob Johnson over at First Baptist, downtown in rural nowhere.:sarcastic

Yup.

I think it's quite funny, this whole "global flood" story. If the flood happened, and then the only possible way for us to have the diversity of species today would be a very rapid and extreme evolution. Millions of species evolving in a very, very short time. Much faster than what the theory of evolution states. In other words, the deluge people have to believe in evolution much more than any of else.

And another note, only a few kinds of birds... funny, the oldest known bird "kinds" are dinosaur kinds. There are a huge amount of fossil evidence for the original birds. We do have the intermediate forms between featherless dinosaurs and feathered dinosaurs, and going forward to feathered dinosaurs with bird features. Many of these steps are represented in the fossil record. So did Noah put archaeopteryx on the ark? It must've been. It has "arch" in the name, so it's fitting.

 

[rusra02]

Those "investigators" are completely and utterly wrong. Did they "investigate" the genetic variation in the human genome? There are far more alleles represented in mankind than you can represent in a handful of people. You need about a 100 people or something like that to represent all variations. Each person carrying two alleles of each gene.

And it applies to most (if not all) animals as well.

There are millions of species. If you claim they were all represented in a few archetypical individuals, then all the new species come from mutation and natural section, which is evolution.

So in other words, you are a supporter of evolution if you believe in the ark.

But even more so, because you have to believe in a very rapid evolution. Millions of species evolving out of the ark in just a few thousand years instead of millions. Now, who is ready to give a scientific explanation to how that was possible?

What is this source, btw? W95 1/15? What's that? Who is it? When was it written? What's his/her credentials? Who are these investigators?

Perhaps new "species", but not new "kinds". Evolutionists claim one family of animals changed into a different family. There is no evidence for this. A wolf is not the same species as a Dog, but they can interbreed. That is variety within kinds, not evolution. W refers to Watchtower, 95 is year and 1/15 is issue.
Humans, with their tremendous variations in size, shape, color, and features all all of the same kind, humankind.

 

[metis]

Perhaps new "species", but not new "kinds". Evolutionists claim one family of animals changed into a different family. There is no evidence for this. A wolf is not the same species as a Dog, but they can interbreed. That is variety within kinds, not evolution. W refers to Watchtower, 95 is year and 1/15 is issue.
Humans, with their tremendous variations in size, shape, color, and features all all of the same kind, humankind.

The fossil record clearly says otherwise because of what we don't find, namely all current "kinds" just jumbled up in with no order. We do see a general pattern, so the belief that everything existed makes no sense.

And remember, one simply cannot say that God made all these at different intervals throughout time because a literal translation has God ending creation at the end of the 6th day, so if one says God kept creating, that defies that verse.

It simply doesn't make one iota of sense to oppose accepting evolution, not only because of the above, but also because evolution is just plain common sense-- all things change over time, and that includes genetic codes. If that wasn't true, the geneticists would totally be opposed to the ToE, but the exact opposite is true.

 

[rusra02]

Considering there are 8.7 million species of animals on this planet, and none of these species are capable of interbreeding with other species, either one of two things is true, either All of those 8.7 million species of animals (except for fish of course) had to fit on the ark, or the ones that were left out perished in the flood, and went extinct, so which one is it?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia about "species". "It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms,[14] and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[15]" Thus, no one knows how many species are on earth. A Google search turned up these numbers:
Vertebrates
Amphibians 6,199
Birds 9,956
Fish 30,000
Mammals 5,416
Reptiles 8,240
Subtotal 59,811
Invertebrates
Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175
Others 130,200
Subtotal 1,203,375

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Btw...what do Dinosaurs fall under?

 

[rusra02]

The fossil record clearly says otherwise because of what we don't find, namely all current "kinds" just jumbled up in with no order. We do see a general pattern, so the belief that everything existed makes no sense.

And remember, one simply cannot say that God made all these at different intervals throughout time because a literal translation has God ending creation at the end of the 6th day, so if one says God kept creating, that defies that verse.

It simply doesn't make one iota of sense to oppose accepting evolution, not only because of the above, but also because evolution is just plain common sense-- all things change over time, and that includes genetic codes. If that wasn't true, the geneticists would totally be opposed to the ToE, but the exact opposite is true.

God created plants and animals, and people, with the marvelous ability for great variation within the limits God defined as a "kind". We see those limits today, as in the past.

I think evolutionists misleadingly label "evolution" as synonymous with "change".